Maada Bio’s illegal dismissal of Sierra Leone’s Anti-Corruption Commissioner dominates the social media

SLPP continues to bastardise Rule of Law/Constitution…🤔

MAADA BIO ILLEGALLY SACKS ACC’s ADY MACAULEY!

His Excellency President Julius Maada Bio has caused many eyebrows to be raised late yesterday of June 20th 2018 with an announcement that he was appointing a new Commissioner for the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) in person of Francis Ben Kaifala, a young lawyer under the age of 35 years. The reason for doubts is not over the choice of Kaifala whom, on paper, appears well qualified for the position. The sensation is over the fact that there is a Commissioner still on seat at the ACC in the person of Ady Macauley Esq.

The law says that Macauley can only be removed through a detailed process involving a Tribunal to look into his health or alleged misconduct. This is because the position of ACC Boss is such a sensitive one that the holder needs security of tenure and protection from dictatorial intimidation. Other legal ways in which Macauley can be replaced by Kaifala, is if Macauley resigns or if Macauley dies. As at press time, Macauley had neither died nor resigned.

Parliament needs to approve any new ACC Commissioner. It is unknown how the current Parliament may handle the unfolding situation. Please see below for more information.
/
*PERTINENT EXTRACTS FROM ACC ACT – WHAT THE LAW SAYS ON HOW AN ACC COMMISSIONER CAN BE LEGALLY REMOVED

*Section 4. Tenure of Office of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner*
(1) The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner shall each hold office for a term of five years and shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years only.
(2) The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may resign his office by written notice addressed to the President.
(3) A resignation is effective upon being received by the President or by a person authorized by the President to receive it.
(4) The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, may be removed from office only for inability to perform the functions of his office, whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or for stated misconduct.
(5) If it is represented to the President that the question of removing the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under subsection (4) ought to be investigated then the President shall appoint a tribunal which shall consist of a chairman and two other members all of whom shall be persons qualified to hold or have held office as Justices of the Court of Appeal;
(6) The Tribunal shall enquire into the matter in accordance with such procedures as it may determine and shall, not later that three months after its appointment, report on the facts thereof and the findings thereon to the President and recommend to him whether the Commissioner of Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be ought to be removed from office.
(7) While the question of removing the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner from office is pending before a tribunal under subsection(5), the President may suspend the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, from performing the functions of his office, and the suspension shall in any case cease to have effect if the tribunal recommends to the President that the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner ought not be removed from office.
(8) The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner shall be removed from office by the President-
(a) if the question of his removal from office has been referred to a tribunal in accordance with subsection (5) and the tribunal has recommended to the President that the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner ought to be removed from office;
AND
(b) if his removal has been approved by a two- thirds majority in Parliament.

*Section 9. Independence of Commission*
(1) The Commission shall act independently, impartially, fairly and in the public interest.
(2) Subject to this Act, the Commission shall not, in the performance of its functions, be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.

Maada Bio boots out ACC’s Head Ady Macauley!

His Excellency President Julius Maada Bio has caused many eyebrows to be raised late yesterday of June 20th 2018 with an announcement that he was appointing a new Commissioner for the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) in person of Francis Ben Kaifala, a young lawyer under the age of 35 years. The reason for doubts is not over the choice of Kaifala whom, on paper, appears well qualified for the position. The sensation is over the fact that there is a Commissioner still on seat at the ACC in the person of Ady Macauley Esq.

The law says that Macauley can only be removed through a detailed process involving a Tribunal to look into his health or alleged misconduct. This is because the position of ACC Boss is such a sensitive one that the holder needs security of tenure and protection from dictatorial intimidation. Other legal ways in which Macauley can be replaced by Kaifala, is if Macauley resigns or if Macauley dies. As at press time, Macauley had neither died nor resigned.
Parliament needs to approve any new ACC Commissioner. It is unknown how the current Parliament may handle the unfolding situation. Please see below for more information.

 

 

PERTINENT EXTRACTS FROM ACC ACT – WHAT THE LAW SAYS ON HOW AN ACC COMMISSIONER CAN BE LEGALLY REMOVED
Section 4. Tenure of Office of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner
(1) The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner shall each hold office for a term of five years and shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years only.
(2) The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may resign his office by written notice addressed to the President.
(3) A resignation is effective upon being received by the President or by a person authorized by the President to receive it.
(4) The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, may be removed from office only for inability to perform the functions of his office, whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or for stated misconduct.
(5) If it is represented to the President that the question of removing the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under subsection (4) ought to be investigated then the President shall appoint a tribunal which shall consist of a chairman and two other members all of whom shall be persons qualified to hold or have held office as Justices of the Court of Appeal;
(6) The Tribunal shall enquire into the matter in accordance with such procedures as it may determine and shall, not later that three months after its appointment, report on the facts thereof and the findings thereon to the President and recommend to him whether the Commissioner of Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be ought to be removed from office.
(7) While the question of removing the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner from office is pending before a tribunal under subsection(5), the President may suspend the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, from performing the functions of his office, and the suspension shall in any case cease to have effect if the tribunal recommends to the President that the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner ought not be removed from office.
(8) The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner shall be removed from office by the President-
(a) if the question of his removal from office has been referred to a tribunal in accordance with subsection (5) and the tribunal has recommended to the President that the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner ought to be removed from office;
AND
(b) if his removal has been approved by a two- thirds majority in Parliament.
Section 9. Independence of Commission
(1) The Commission shall act independently, impartially, fairly and in the public interest.
(2) Subject to this Act, the Commission shall not, in the performance of its functions, be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.
By:Awareness-Times

Alie Kamara It is obvious that Bio is no friend of the anti-corruption institution. Sending the commissioner to a special leave without any explanation is a rebellious attitude and subsequently sacking the commissioner after a few days on leave when his tenure is not complete and doing so without regards to constitutional provisions is a malpractice we are now increasingly becoming familiar with, under this administration. The illegal firing of the anti-corruption commissioner is yet another display of total disrespect for the rule of law. It is tantamount to corruption. President Bio has reportedly nominated a new anti-corruption boss. So, the new anti-corruption Commissioner is nominated for appointment by a corrupt president following a corrupted process that cleared the way for the new anti-corruption boss charged with the responsibility to enforce anti-corruption laws. The illegal firing is not without its consequences. It is almost certain that there would be a legal suite and the ultimate responsibility will fall on the state. For a President that has been crying that the kitty is empty, this nonchalance in making decisions that will cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars is totally an irresponsible behavior. Now, the ball is on the parliamentarians court because civil society groups whose lead positions are occupied by pro-government officials have their principles compromised by partisanship and are expected, as usual, to be silent. The opposition parties should put their money where their mouth is by voting down every nomination by the President for the position of anti-corruption Commissioner and by voting in order to remand the decision by the president to fire Ade Maccauley.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1m

No automatic alt text available.
Mamu Al Conteh
IT’S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OPPOSITION MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO OPPOSE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE NEW ACC BOSS. YOU CANNOT APPROVE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.
Saou Dee God if the people of this land have sin against you please have mercy on us, thing’s are not going the right way. We are begging your pardon to take control over this land.
Martha Kargbo Nothing change my brother. Things are just repeating themselves.
Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr It is an amazing paradox that in this New Direction, the breaches of the Constition and the Rule of Law impacts greatly and are more prominent on the appointments of Lawyers to work in this New Administration. Sierra Leoneans must start to think deeply; this is getting worse.
The 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone gives the President ‘Supreme Executive Authority’, according to the Supreme Court.

As pro-democracy campaigners and human rights defenders, some of us saw that ruling as legitimising dictatorship, but others, especially the beneficiaries at the time, thought otherwise.

Therefore, what authority does anyone have to question the President today in the exercise of his constitutional and Supreme Court recognized authority, which President Koroma used to sack his VP and imposed his will on the state?

If the President has the legal authority to sack his (elected) vice /second in command, what stops him from sacking any of his own appointees or those of his predecessors?

Or are those who are criticizing the President today saying that the Supreme Court ruling was faulty, or was right only at that time, but is no longer applicable today?

@MustaphaMKSesay200618

lusine Conteh I don’t believe we should pay wrong for wrong. He campaigned on upholding the rule of law, so we want to see him doing this. All the wrong things APC did that led the out of office are what we are experiencing again. If this trend continues, the progress of this country is a mirage.

Amadu Lamrana Bah The President you are defending condemned that unlawful act openly and even mentioned it in his State Opening speech.

People voted for change and not to be reminded of the wrongs APC did to justify another wrong.

Mohamed Ahmed Abdul Wahab I am tied of people comparing this two party always when it comes to national issues, should we continue doing the same mistakes all the time ? Sierra Leoneans voted slpp for a change and not a pay back

Sheku Putka Kamara

 I continue to get flabbergasted and yes dumbfounded at the unconstitutionalities in President Bio’s ‘New Direction.’

It is no secret that the SLPP campaigned on a train which among other things has to do with the ‘irregularities of Koroma’s administration. In just few months, we’re seeing the same things if not worse.

These calamitous incidences cannot progress us. We really still have a whole lot of fixing to do.

© Sheku Putka Kamara

Kamara Ibrahim The New Direction is sweeping across the nation with hate and ethnic cleansing promised by His Exccellency during the runoff elections. We never anticipated the this trend of the New Direction. But I believe Julius Bio is digging his own grave. His own supporters will lead the venture knowing too well his toxic governance

Related Posts